I read the first few parts of their "creation model", and the only thing that surprised me was just how bad their reasoning was.

Let me see if I can't give a summary of each "session".

Session 1: Nothing to do with creation at all, just an attempt to justify their beliefs and show that other religious beliefs are wrong, followed by an attempt to justify the Earth being created solely to benefit humans. Their claim that they can identify God scientifically falls flat upon further reading, as it is quite clear that they have no actual evidence whatsoever, making them no different from any of the other creationists who have tried in the past.

Session 2: Now they're actually talking about the Earth...wait, what? The Earth was nothing but a ball of water, no other elements present? *facepalm* And of course, they're claiming that the creation of the "heavens" (what they call the "space-time dimension") and the Earth took only one solar day. Never mind that there was no sun to begin with. How is anyone supposed to know whether it was a solar day if there was no Sol to measure it?

Session 3: Here, they claim that the magnetic field that surrounds the earth came about because the free hydrogen in the "magnetic canopy" surrounding the massive ball of water that would become the Earth bonded into a crystalline lattice that formed a "firmament". No, I don't think so. Hydrogen is not inherently magnetic in the way they're trying to claim, and it would not have bonded into "crystal" simply because of the presence of energy.

Session 4: Finally, the dry land and all its attendant elements appeared. This somehow started a life cycle, and all the various plants appeared - fruits and seeds already present upon their creation. The next day, the "stellar heavens" (everything else in the universe) was created, in "seven distinct spheres of star bodies". Somehow, everything in the heavens was designed in harmony with Earth's biorhythms, too. Seriously...did these people even make the slightest bit of effort to actually study science, or did they just grab terms that sounded good when they were making this?

Session 5: Fish and birds created. Apparently, insects count as birds for purposes of this, and marine reptiles (and probably mammals too) as fish. All the other animals had to wait till the next day, including the dinosaurs (who coexisted with humans...right...), other mammals, and (a) man. Oh, and a woman too, though she was created from a rib. *eyeroll*

Session 6: The "crystalline firmament" (remember, somehow made of pure hydrogen) blocked out all shortwave radiation, and "universal radio signals" created music every morning.

There's more, but I see little point in continuing to summarize the words of people so ignorant of science that they thought this series of "creation model sessions" was scientific. To be blunt, this is about as unscientific as it gets. Only people who know virtually nothing about science could think this would be even slightly convincing to anyone who did know something about it. The only thing I can think of is that they're trying to use scientific jargon to convince (or fool) other people who are ignorant of science into buying into this.

Scientific evidence for creation abounds in areas of objective observation. Scholars in various scientific disciplines have written about the incredible complexity in living systems and the structure of the universe. This complexity is beyond the possibility of natural development.

How did that water stay as water with no sun? Never mind, Dealing with YEC is like talking to a brick.

No, you're on the right track. Asking questions of someone with a nonsensical belief that they're supporting with "science" is the best way to show that they don't know jack from frost.

Many people are not educated enough to recognize this flimflam for what it is. That's why they can get away with it, because it sounds authoritative. So asking them questions - that they most likely can't answer - is a good way to show that they don't actually know what they're talking about.

Except that some YEC are getting even more devious. Now some of them (like Kent Hovind) say that natural selection works but that it has nothing to do with evolution. It's enough to make your skin crawl.

Logged

Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding. - Martin Luther

Scientific evidence for creation abounds in areas of objective observation. Scholars in various scientific disciplines have written about the incredible complexity in living systems and the structure of the universe. This complexity is beyond the possibility of natural development.

It doesn't need a response. If it's to be taken seriously, let them provide the proof they've burdened themselves with. Let them do the research. But we all know they already blew their research budget on pamphlets and web pages and youtube videos ...I'd simply ask how in the name of fuck any YEC could know what is beyond the possibility of natural development considering no (non-woo) scientist is claiming such knowledge without some serious backup. Then get ready to hear some nonsense about thermodynamics or something.

« Last Edit: September 14, 2012, 03:51:27 PM by Noman Peopled »

Logged

"Deferinate" itself appears to be a new word... though I'm perfectly carmotic with it.-xphobe